It is likely that ballot access laws for minor parties and independent
candidates will improve substantially this month in Colorado, Maryland, Virginia
and Wyoming.

Colorado: HB 1110 passed the Senate State, Veterans & Military
Affairs Committee on February 25 by a vote of 8-0. It had previously passed the
House. It will probably pass the full Senate sometime during March. The
legislature is in session until May. The bill provides that a group may place
all its nominees on the general election ballot, with no further petitioning, if
it (1) submits 10,000 signatures on a petition; or (2) has at least 1,000
registered members, according to voter registration records; or (3) ran at least
ten candidates in the last election; or (4) polled 5% for any statewide race in
either of the last two elections.

The old Colorado law provided that a group had to poll 10% for Governor in
order to place nominees on the ballot without submitting separate petitions for
each candidate.

Maryland: HB 118 passed the House on March 4 by a vote of 115-17. SB
123 and SB 27 passed the Senate 39-6 on February 27. None of the three bills are
alike, but all improve ballot access. Since the bills are slightly different,
the House bill must still pass the Senate, or one of the Senate bills must still
pass the House.

HB 118 lowers minor party and independent candidate petitions from 3% of the
number of registered voters, to 1%, a huge improvement (for statewide office,
from 75,000 signatures to 25,000). It also provides that parties can avoid
collecting candidate petitions if they have membership (as shown on voter
registration records) of at least 1% of the state total. Unfortunately, it
increases the petition to qualify a new party from 10,000 signatures to 1% of
the number of registered voters.

SB 27 is the same as HB 118, except that it does not raise the number
of signatures for the party petition. SB 123 is the same as SB 27, except that
it only lowers candidate petitions for statewide office, not district office.

Proponents of ballot access reform are cautiously optimistic that the
legislature will pass a bill with the characteristics of SB 27.

If any of the Maryland bills are signed into law, the only states in the
nation which will continue to require more than 50,000 signatures or members to
qualify a new party will be California, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina and
Oklahoma (although Minnesota has a full party procedure of greater than 50,000
signatures, minor parties in Minnesota can appear on the ballot with the party
label by using the much easier independent procedure).

All the bills were assisted by a strong endorsement from Ellen Sauerbrey,
Republican gubernatorial candidate in 1994. She is running again in 1998.

Virginia: SB 316 passed the House on February 27, and has been sent to
the Governor. An identical bill, HB 49, also passed both houses. The bills lower
the number of signatures for statewide minor party and independent candidates
from .5% of the number of registered voters (almost 18,000) to a flat 10,000.
They lower the number for U.S. House candidates from .5% (about 1,600
signatures) to a flat 1,000.

The only negative change is that statewide petitions now will need 400
signatures from each congressional district; formerly they needed 200 from each
district. Virginia has eleven U.S. House seats.

The old law is so restrictive that only two minor party or independent
candidates for U.S. Senate have appeared on the Virginia ballot in the last
twenty years.

Wyoming: SF 33 passed the Senate 25-5 on March 2. The House
Corporations & Elections Committee is expected to pass it this week. It
lowers the number of signatures for minor parties and independent candidates to
2% of the last congressional vote cast (for statewide office, 4,200 signatures
in 1998), and lowers the vote test for parties to remain on the ballot from 3%,
to 2%, of the congressional vote. Also, the vote test would no longer need to be
met solely in the U.S. House race, but could also met by a party's gubernatorial
candidate, or candidate for Secretary of State.

New Mexico: the bill for "instant run-off", SJR 8, failed on a tie
vote of 4-4 last month in the Senate Rules Committee. One Senator who would
probably have voted for it, was absent. It is too late in the legislative
session for another vote.

Vermont: "instant run-off" for statewide office is likely to pass next
year. This year, hearings have been held on H 665, and legislative leaders
support the bill, although they won't pass it this year because it hasn't had
enough publicity yet, and they don't wish to make a radical change in election
procedure without more public awareness. Common Cause and the Center for Voting
and Democracy are working for such awareness. The legislature itself is planning
to use the system later this month when it votes on a mock resolution to choose
the "best" reporter who covers the legislature.

"Instant run-off", also called preference voting, lets voters place a "one"
next to their favorite candidate on the ballot, and "two" for an alternate
choice. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice ballots, the
second-choice ballots of the voters whose first choice was eliminated are
counted.

1. Alabama: HB 105, which would have changed all elections (except
presidential elections) to the system used in Louisiana, has been abandoned,
even though the bill passed the House Constitution and Elections Committee last
month. The Louisiana system provides for a single vote for all candidates,
several months prior to the general election. If anyone gets 50%, that person is
elected; otherwise the two top vote-getters compete in a November run-off. The
U.S. Supreme Court invalidated that system, for congressional elections, several
months ago.

2. Arizona: Three bills which would have made it more difficult for
initiatives to get on the ballot have been indefinitely postponed. They are HB
2491, HB 2493, and HCR 2014. They would ban paying petitioners per signature,
require petitioners to wear ID badges, create a county distribution requirement,
and move the filing deadline from July to January.

Arizona (2): HB 2028 lost in the House Government Operations Committee
by 4-5 on February 14. It would have let a candidate obtain a place on a primary
ballot by paying a fee. Current law requires a petition of one-half of 1% of a
party's registration, to put a candidate on a party primary ballot.

However, SB 1255, which lowers the number of signatures needed for a
candidate to get on a major party primary ballot, passed the Senate Rules
Committee on February 23 and will soon be voted on in the Senate. It reduces the
number of signatures needed for a candidate to get on a statewide primary ballot
to 2,000 signatures, of one-half of 1%, whichever is less. The current
requirement for statewide major party candidates is over 4,000 signatures.

3.California: SB 1505 was introduced on February 6
and will probably have its first hearing in the Senate Elections Committee early
in April. It would amend the "blanket primary" passed by initiative in 1996.
There would be separate presidential primary ballots for each party, and only
members of a party could vote in those presidential primaries.

Only the results of those presidential primaries would count, toward choosing
delegates to a national convention.

Totally separate from that, there would be a "beauty contest" presidential
primary ballot for any voter who wished to vote in it, but the results would
have no concrete effect.

If the bill passes, it still won't go into effect unless the voters approve
it in November 1998. In California, laws enacted by initiatives can't be amended
unless the voters agree.

4. Georgia: SB 551, by Senator Steve Langford, which would have vastly
eased ballot access for minor party candidates for U.S. House and state
legislature, has not passed the Senate State and Local Government Committee, and
it is now too late for it to proceed.

5. Hawaii: SB 2942, which would have made it easier for a minor party
to appear on the ballot, has not passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and it is almost too late for it to advance. SB 2376, which would cancel the
primary election of any party with no contests in its primary, has also failed
to advance.

6. Iowa: HF 315 would have eliminated the "straight ticket device", or
"party circle" from state ballots, but it failed to advance and is now dead.

7. Kentucky: SB 98, recently introduced by Senator Tom Buford
(R-Nicholasville) would delete the requirement that a candidate in a major party
primary must have been registered in that party for a year before he or she
files.

8. Louisiana: a special session of the legislature will be called
later this month, to wrestle with the problem that the U.S. Supreme Court
invalidated the state's election system for congressional elections late last
year (see Alabama paragraph above for further explanation). Political observers
are still unable to predict what the legislature will substitute.

9. New Jersey: AB 184 would change the date of primaries from June to
the first Tuesday in March, in presidential election years. It hasn't had a
hearing yet.

New Jersey (2): Senate President Donald DiFrancesco plans to introduce
a bill to alter the state's public financing law, to provide that out-of-state
contributions to gubernatorial candidates do not count, when such candidates are
trying to raise enough money to obtain public financing and a spot on the
debates. The bill is prompted by the fact that Libertarian gubernatorial
candidate Murray Sabrin last year became the first minor party candidate to ever
qualify for public funds. Sabrin received contributions from Libertarians all
across the U.S.

10. Ohio: HB 277, introduced last year, would require that independent
candidates not have voted at a partisan primary in either of the last two
elections. It has not yet made any progress.

11. Pennsylvania: HB 1918, which eases ballot access for minor party
and independent candidates, still has not received a vote in the House State
Government Committee. Other proposed bills, to establish guidelines on how
write-in votes should be tallied, and to establish "instant-runoff", have not
yet been introduced.

12. South Carolina: SB 357, which would require minor party candidates
to pay filing fees, passed the Senate last year and will be heard in the House
Judiciary Committee later this month. Traditionally, qualified minor parties
nominate by convention (although any qualified party is free to decide whether
to nominate by primary or convention). Current law requires filing fees only
from candidates running in a primary; the bill would impose fees on candidates
nominated in convention.

13. Utah: On March 2, Governor Michael Leavitt signed HB 75, which
bans fusion. The bill had passed the Senate last month by a vote of 16-12.
Congressman Merrill Cook (R-Utah) had asked Governor Leavitt to veto the bill,
but to no avail.

14. Virginia: all the bills to print party labels failed to pass. They
were SB 18, HB 12, and HB 1320. Virginia is the only state which omits all party
labels from general election ballots (except that Virginia prints party labels
for president).

On February 20, the Arizona House Government Reform Committee passed HB 2336,
which revamps independent candidate petitions. In the future, if the bill
passes, there will be no more independent candidate petitions for the general
election. Instead, anyone who wishes to be an independent candidate must compete
in a "primary election" in which only independents, and members of unqualified
parties, will be able to vote. This agglomeration of voters will choose one
"winner" of this primary, who will be the only independent candidate for that
particular office who can be placed on the ballot.

The bill does not mention how independent presidential candidates could ever
get on the general election ballot. Arizona has a February presidential primary.
To require independent presidential candidates to file a declaration in January
would violate the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v
Celebrezze, the 1983 decision which said that states cannot require
independent candidates to file earlier than the summer of election years.
Representative Marilyn Jarrett (R-Mesa), the bill's chief sponsor, acknowledged
in a telephone conversation on March 5 that she hasn't considered this problem.
The Secretary of State's office says it hasn't yet studied the bill.

On February 23, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Colorado's appeal in
Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, 97-930. The issue
is whether a state may require that a petitioner be a registered voter, and
whether a state may require a petitioner to wear a button identifying himself or
herself. The 10th circuit had ruled both restrictions invalid under the First
Amendment. However, the 10th circuit had upheld a law requiring petitioners to
be adults. The American Constitutional Law Foundation had asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to overturn the age restriction, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear that part of the case.

On February 23, the Constitution Revision Commission voted 29-0 to reaffirm
support for the proposal to eliminate mandatory petitioning for minor party and
independent candidates. The proposal to provide equal ballot access procedures
for all candidates will be voted on by the voters of Florida in November. If it
passes, it will be in the State Constitution. All candidates would be free to
choose whether to pay a filing fee, or submit a petition. Currently, minor party
and independent candidates must do both. Florida filing fees for Congress are
over $8,000 and the statewide petition (for all office other than president) is
242,337 valid signatures. Obviously, it is easier for a minor party candidate
for U.S. Senate to pay a fee of $8,000 than it is to submit 242,337 signatures.

In the meantime, Representative Lori Edwards will introduce a bill to lower
the petition requirements when the legislature convenes in April. No sponsor for
a similar bill in the State Senate has been found yet.

On February 26, the U.S. House Oversight Committee held a brief hearing on
the two bills introduced by Congressman Ron Paul to help minor parties and
independent candidates. The only person allowed to testify was Congressman Paul
himself. The bills are HR 2477, which outlaws restrictive ballot access laws in
federal elections for minor party and independent candidates, and HR 2478, which
provides that if general election presidential debates are being held, all
candidates on the ballot in 40 states must be invited.

The hearing was historic, since the ballot access bill has been in five
different sessions of Congress, and this was the first time it ever had a
hearing. However, the impact of the hearing was not very great, since the press
did not attend, and only two members of the Committee were there to hear the
testimony.

Congressman Bill Redmond (R-New Mexico) recently became a co-sponsor of the
two Ron Paul bills.

On February 27, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed the Reform
Party's constitutional case against certain aspects of the federal election
campaign law, because the lawsuit is "frivolous". Nat.Comm. of Reform
Party v Democratic National Committee, c97-4048. The Reform Party is
appealing.

The supposed basis for the "frivolous" label is that since the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld public financing aspects of the Act in 1976 (Buckley v
Valeo), therefore the new lawsuit cannot succeed. However, in the 1976
lawsuit, there were no parties in existence who had polled more than 5% of the
vote, but less than 25% of the vote, for president at the last election.
Therefore, the treatment of such parties was not specifically dealt with in the
1976 opinion. Currently, of course, there is such a party, the Reform Party (it
polled 8.5% for president in 1996).

The Reform Party argues that since the law requires equal public funding for
parties which poll 25%, it violates Equal Protection that parties which poll
between 5% and 25% do not also get equal funding, especially since the
contribution limits are equal for all parties.

There are other issues in the lawsuit as well, including a challenge to
two-party monopoly membership on the FEC. The lawsuit also argues that the FEC
ignored Democratic and Republican campaign violations in 1996, and that the
federal law's only remedy for FEC inaction (that the complainant file a lawsuit
with U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.) is not procedurally meaningful.

Judge Walker did rule that the Reform Party has standing to bring the
lawsuit. The FEC had even argued that, since the National Committee of the
Reform Party had never been declared to be a National Committee by the FEC,
therefore the party cannot even file a lawsuit. The Reform Party pointed out
that the FEC has never specifically ruled that the National Committees of the
Democratic and Republican Parties are national committees either, and yet they
frequently file lawsuits.

1. California: on February 3, Superior Court Judge James T. Ford
placed a congressional candidate on the Republican primary ballot even though he
is only 24 years old. The candidate will be age 25 by election day. The state
had refused to certify him, since the election law requires candidates to meet
the age requirement when they file. Nunes v Jones, 98CS00274,
Sacramento.

California (2): On February 13, the 9th circuit refused to reconsider
its decision in NAACP v Jones, 96-56455, the case brought by the
Voting Rights Institute challenging the method by which judges raise campaign
contributions.

2. Georgia: on February 9, the State Supreme Court ruled against the
Green Party, on the issue of whether Nader supporters needed to run legal
notices in state newspapers as a condition of Nader write-ins being counted in
November 1996. Esco v Secretary of State, S97A1483. The requirement
is redundant, since write-in candidates must file a declaration of write-in
candidacy with the Secretary of State. The Court didn't even write an opinion;
it merely said "affirmed".

3. Maine: on February 18, U.S. District Court Judge Gene Carter, a
Reagan appointee, upheld Maine law which requires a qualified party to poll 5%
of the presidential vote in order to retain its spot on the ballot. Maine
Green Party v Secretary of State, 96cv261. The decision was no surprise,
since the Federal Magistrate assigned to the case had recommended this result
two months ago. The Green Party is appealing.

Maine (2): On February 24, Superior Court Judge Donald Alexander ruled
that if a town clerk refuses to certify signatures on an initiative petition in
the allotted statutory time period, but does certify them later, the state must
accept those signatures. Petitioners were trying to get a medical marijuana
initiative on the ballot. The Secretary of State has accepted the ruling and is
not appealing. Clark v Secretary of State of Maine, civ AP 98-11,
Cumberland County.

4. Montana: on October 17, 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Charles C.
Lovell, a Reagan appointee, struck down a state law that no one may "solicit" a
vote for or against any candidate on election day. National Right to Life
PAC v McGrath, 982 F Supp 694.

1. Arkansas: On February 12, U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody,
a Clinton appointee, upheld legislative term limits. Wilson v
Priest, H-C-97-29. Plaintiffs had argued that the law discriminates
against African American voters.

2. California: the U.S. Supreme Court will probably say on March 23
whether it will hear Bates v Jones, 97-1173, the case over
legislative term limits. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a case on
whether state term limits violate the U.S. Constitution.

3. Michigan: on February 5, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J.
Duggan, a Clinton appointee, upheld the state's legislative term limits.
Citizens for Legislative Choice v Miller, 97-cv-73777-DT, Detroit.
As a result, 64 out of 110 representatives cannot run for re-election this year
(the State Senate is not up this year).

4. Missouri: on February 18, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brook
Bartlett, a Reagan appointee, struck down an initiative which provided that the
words "Disregarded Voter Instruction on Term Limits" should be placed on the
ballot next to the names of candidates who fail to support a constitutional
amendment for congressional term limits. Gralike v Cook, 96-4417,
Jefferson City. The Attorney General of Missouri announced that he will appeal.

5. Nevada: on January 23, the State Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of placing candidates on the ballot in alphabetical order. It
said there is insufficient evidence that ballot order affects voting behavior.
Schaefer v Tighe, no. 27159. The plaintiff has filed a new lawsuit
over the same issue in federal court, Schaefer v Heller,
cv-s-96-492-LDG(RJJ).

On February 20, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Timlin, a Clinton
appointee, ruled that it is constitutional for a state to keep a congressional
candidate off the ballot if he is not registered to vote in the state.
Schaefer v Townsend, cv 98-0033 (Riverside). California law
requires candidates to be registered voters in the district they seek to run in,
although in the past this law has not been applied to congressional candidates,
since Article I of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the qualifications to be a
member of Congress, and states cannot add to those qualifications. Article I
merely says that congressmen must be a resident of the state "when elected". The
judge ruled that residency is not a "qualification", but a "procedure". Under
the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, states
cannot add to the "qualifications" listed in the U.S. Constitution, but can bar
candidates for not following "procedures". Obviously, the judge is wrong, since
residency is mentioned in Article I of the Constitution, in the list of
"qualifications" (the term used by the U.S. Supreme Court).

The plaintiff, Michael Schaefer, desired to run in the special congressional
election in California's 44th district (to fill the seat left vacant when
Congressman Sonny Bono died). Schaefer has a home in California but is
registered to vote in his domicile, Las Vegas, Nevada. He says that it if
appeared possible that he might win, he would change his domicile to California
before the election.

Schaefer has filed for a rehearing. He points out that in 1964, the
California Supreme Court ordered the state to place Pierre Salinger on the
ballot as a U.S. Senate candidate, even though Salinger was a registered voter
in Virginia at the time, and was not eligible to register in California.
Similarly, Robert Kennedy was placed on the New York ballot in 1964 for U.S.
Senate even though he was a registered voter in Virginia. A motion for rehearing
will be argued on April 2.

"FULL PARTY REQ." means a new party can qualify before it names candidates;
() means party must also do candidate petitions. # Candidate procedure lets
candidate use party label. "Deadline" refers to the procedure with the earliest
deadline. * -- Entry Changed since last issue. Mississippi, New Jersey,
Virginia, West Virginia have no statewide offices up in 1998, so for them, chart
is for US House.

On March 5, the Federal Election Commission approved the Reform Party's
application for "National Committee" status. Other minor parties which have this
status are the Libertarian, U.S. Taxpayers, and Natural Law Parties. The direct
advantage for parties to have such status relates only to campaign finance.
However, an indirect advantage for parties which have this status is that the
national officers of the party gain an additional measure of legitimacy, which
is useful if there is an internal dispute within the party over who the legal
officers are.

Crucial to the FEC decision was the fact that the Reform Party had 16
candidates for Congress in 1996 who raised or spent at least $5,000. The FEC
won't award "national committee" status to any party unless it has congressional
candidates with substantial campaigns in several states.

On March 10, there will be a special election to fill a vacant State Senate
seat in Florida's 17th district. Three candidates are on the ballot, a
Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian, Carl Strang. This is the first time
any minor party candidate has been on the ballot for State Senate in Florida
since the 1910's decade (although the American Party was on the Florida ballot
in 1974 and 1976, it didn't have any State Senate candidates either time).

Strang is a former Mayor of Winter Park, a city in the 17th district. He is
expected to poll a substantial vote.

On February 4, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission reduced the fine
levied against the Socialist Workers Party Campaign from $4,900 to $330. The
fine is to punish the campaign for not reporting the names of contributors.
However, the Commission will not do anything further to force the names to be
revealed. The Socialist Workers Party has not decided whether to file a lawsuit
against the fine. Ever since the 1970's, courts (including the U.S. Supreme
Court) and administrative bodies have excused the Communist and Socialist
Workers Parties from revealing the names of their campaign contributors, since
evidence showed that members of those parties, when identified publicly, were
somewhat likely to suffer harassment. The FEC exempted the Socialist Workers
Party from reporting its campaign contributors through the year 2002.

The New Mexico Reform Party is now a qualified minor party, rather than a
qualified major party. Major parties in New Mexico must fulfill two
requirements: (1) poll 5% for a statewide race in the previous election; (2)
hold membership of at least three-tenths of 1%, near the beginning of any
election year. The Reform Party met the first requirement in 1996, but did not
get its registration up to the required level last month. It needed 2,617
registrants, but had only 174.

In January, Rasmussen Research published these poll results: 46% of U.S.
residents believe that our political system does not produce a government which
reflects the will of the people. 40% believe that our government does reflect
the will of the people. 13% are not sure.

Only 27% believe that the contest between a Democrat and a Republican offers
the voters a clear choice between opposing political philosophies. For more
information on this poll, see the world-wide web at www.PortraitofAmerica.com